[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Re: Re: Inks and retouching
At 02:50 29/07/2004 -0600, GC wrote:
Ink stain on f93r - Nick, my laughing is waking the neighborhood, but I'm
trying to laugh loud enough for you to hear me all the way to England. You
of all people should know how much time I have invested in this folio. I
can recite both the script and the plaintext for this folio in my sleep! I
know the four errors made on this page by the author, and I'd ask you to
correctly identify them. You know I only release certain details of f78r
because I "own" f93r and protect that knowledge. Bringing this folio into a
serious discussion on "retouching" shouldn't be a laughing matter however,
so plese parden my lak of edikette, and let me get serious about this folio.
Retouching is evident within the ink stain - and the logic would be, that
the ink stain somehow obliterated the glyphs so they were in need of
renewing? NOT, NAY, never happened.
Ooops, sorry for waking your neighbours, my mistake - I didn't mean the
obvious water stain on f93r at all, I actually meant the ink-like stain on
f103r instead. Of course f93r is the gen-u-wine artigal, there's no
retouching there at all. It's a different story for f103r, though. :-)
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: